276 
God. Hence the force of this just axiom, that not a single 
fact of science fully ascertained has ever yet been proved to 
be in opposition to a single statement of Scripture rightly 
understood. At the same time it must be acknowledged how 
differently this is understood by various classes at the present 
time. There are those who believe without investigation, 
because they conscientiously believe the Bible to be the 
revealed will of God ; there are others who believe after the 
strictest investigation; there are those who, after investi- 
gation, deny God in toto, like the German Buchner, or the 
English Bradlaugh ; there are those who stand midway between 
Atheists and Theists, like Professor Tyndall, and content them- 
selves with a sort of ideal Deity of their own composition ; 
while others, like Herbert Spencer, are unable to make up their 
minds as to the existence of a God or not, consoling themselves 
with such reasoning as this : “ I do not affirm there is no God. 
I am simply between the two statements. Some saj r there 
is a God ; some say there is not ; I only say I am not aware 
of it.” * 
52. I think, therefore, it may be safely affirmed without pre- 
sumption that, in order to understand the cosmogony as sketched 
out, rather than dogmatically laid down, iu Scripture, there 
must be before all a sincere belief in revelation, together with a 
competent amount of Biblical scholarship, and some knowledge 
of the elements of modern science. The chief objectors to the 
Hebrew cosmogony in our own day may know much of the 
last, less of the middle, and apparently nothing whatever of the 
first. As a rule, they present a striking contrast to that 
master mind in all genuine science, Sir Isaac Newton, whose 
humility and genius were alike conspicuous in his memorable 
avowal, which they would do well to imitate : — “ I am but as a 
* See Transactions of the Victoria Institute, vol. vii. p. 160. What acon- 
trast to the well-known teaching of one of England’s greatest philosophers. 
“Undoubtedly,” wrote Bacon, “a superficial tincture of philosophy may 
incline the mind to atheism, yet a farther knowledge brings it back to 
religion. For on the threshold of philosophy, where second causes appear 
to absorb the attention, some oblivion of the highest cause may ensue ; but 
when the mind goes deeper, and sees the dependence of causes and the works 
of Providence, it will easily perceive, according to the mythology of the 
poets, that the upper link of Nature's chain is fastened to Jupiter’s throne. 
Let none weakly imagine that man can search too far, or be too well studied 
in the book of God’s word and works, — divinity and philosophy ; but rather 
let them endeavour an endless progression in both, only applying all to 
charity and not to pride— to use, not ostentation, without confounding the 
two different streams of philosophy and revelation together.” (Advancement 
of Learning, book i. p. 32.) See “ Reply ” respecting the real opinions of 
Herbert Spencer and Professor Tyndall. 
